stephenkingfandomcom_es-20200214-history
Plantilla:Pp-template
View Source I would like to know if you can put the code of the template onto the page, because I need to get the template onto my wiki on my website. --Redbear81 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) :You can view the source of the template. Click the "edit" or "view source" tab. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Request for edit : W3C standard Please use instead of to be valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional. - Aither (Talk to me) 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) :done. CMummert · talk 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Server load Could we add to this template a notice, to admins, to be aware that when editing templates that are widely transcluded, #All pages that use it will not be updated instantly #A fair amount of server load could result from editing templates that are very widely used, so while we shouldn't worry about performance, there is no reason to not exercise caution. Preferably discuss changes on the talk page first. This probably needs to be summarized a bit more pithily. GracenotesT § 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) :Seems OK to me. Not a lot of admins edit templates, though, so individual counseling is probably adequate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I agree with Carl about admin education. I've been going through Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and find some awareness of this problem, like ais523's comment here. What's more, I'm not sure this is appropriate since many of these templates are substituted rather than transcluded. Look at for example.--Chaser - T 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC) :Here's a proposal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) This | =image, used in one or more high-risk templates and/or , |#default=high-risk template }} has been protected from editing to prevent vandalism. (type=protect&page= }} protection log). | ='Do not move this image' to Wikimedia Commons. |#default= It may take some time for changes to this template to propagate through the job queue. To expedite this, any changes should be discussed on the talk page and implemented cautiously using a single edit. }} ::I agree with Carl and Chaser. The primary purpose of this template is to indicate that the template has been locked to prevent vandalism. If an admin needs to be educated regarding not editing a high-use template needlessly, then let's do that instead. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC) :::I'm going to disable the editprotected request. Gracenotes, how about adding something to the administrator's how-to guide WP:AHTG? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC) They're not protected from editing It should say "protected from editing by non-administrators." A.Z. 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :Not done. The template does imply that administrators can edit the article. No need to make it longer than it already is. --- RockMFR 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :: Five Two words longer is too much? I am a person reading the template and I feel there is a need to make it clear and explicit that the page is not protected from editing, but that only a specific group of editors are unable to edit it, and it doesn't bother me if it becomes five two words longer. A.Z. 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::None of the other protection tags make this specification. I don't see a need to specify that admins can edit protected pages, as there doesn't seem to be any confusion about this fact. --- RockMFR 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::I feel the form "protected from editing by non-administrators" is better than "protected from editing", and then some time after that the template tells you "by the way, despite the fact that this page is protected from editing, you can ask an administrator to edit it." This is confusing. Administrators would not be able to edit a page that is "protected from editing," but they would be able to edit a page that is "protected from editing by non-administrators." A.Z. 20:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::::First "protected from editing by non-administrators" is not precisely correct. I believe that bureaucrats, stewards, and the like, would all be able to edit a protected page. And, no, I am not suggesting you expand the list of types of editors to whom the protection does not apply. In other discussions you have started, A.Z., about similar abilities that admins (and other "titled" editors) have, the point has been made that it would be an unusual circumstance where an admin, on his/her own, or at the request of a single non-admin, would make a change to a protected page. If enough non-admins make the request, of course, there would be concensus for the change and then an admin might either override the protection or, indeed, remove it. The articles Administrators and Wikipedia:Protection policy are both readily available to any editor who is not sure about who can do what to what, and any admin will answer a question about how she/he is prepared to use the tools. Bielle 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::First, I believe that bureaucrats et cetera are administrators as well, that only have extra titles/tools. ::::::You said that "it would be an unusual circumstance where an admin, on his/her own, or at the request of a single non-admin, would make a change to a protected page." So, to you, a page being protected doesn't mean at all that only administrators can edit it: it means that no-one, including administrators, can edit it unless there's a consensus for the change. If and only if there is consensus, then an administrator can "override the protection," that applies to him/her, the administrator, as well. In this case, the current phrase "protected from editing" would be a correct way to explain the situation. ::::::If the above is true, then the page Wikipedia:Protection_policy should say something about it, but it doesn't. I don't know if your theory is true, but I believe that many users disagree that it is. I remember when the reference desk guidelines talk page was semi-protected, everyone continued editing it normally, though that was a talk page, and perhaps the rule is different to non-talk pages. A.Z. 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::Semi-protection is not the same as protection. As I understand, semi-protection only stops new editors from editing, and then only for a few days. (The talk page is often left open so that matters can be resolved in an effort that will result in the lifting of the protected status.) What admins can do, and what, in practice, they do do, are often quite different. An admin can (i.e. has the tools to) edit a protected page on his/her own behalf or at the request of another; however, in practice, admins don't do such things lightly or very often. (It's often an ethical matter: just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.) That's my experience, and that, I believe is what has been said a number of times about this issue. That there are wayward admins from time to time, or unusual circunstances, is true, but that it happens often, I would doubt. Bielle 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::::Shouldn't the page Wikipedia:Protection_policy say that? A.Z. 00:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::::Having looked at Wikipedia:User access levels, it would appear that I was wrong about bureaucrats et. al. being able to protect pages. That surprises me, but I will assume that the chart shown there is correct. It does show who can do what, down to the smallest detail. however. I was also wrong about who is limited in semi-protection; the barrier extends to all non-registered users, too. Teach me to write before I check. To answer your immediately preceding question, no, I don't think Wikipedia:Protection_policy needs to say more than it does. Such an addition smacks of Instruction creep when the process follows quite logically from the requirement for concensus for change in disputed areas. Bielle 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Interwiki Please add: no:Mal:Pp-template --Lipothymia 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :Moved to no:Mal:Pp-mal. Please add. Nsaa 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Please explain use of imagemap here I am happy for someone to tell me how obvious it is. However I cannot see a reason at this point for the pair of tags. Always happy to learn something new. Fiddle Faddle 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Documentation Please use 16@r (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) : Done - Nihiltres{'''t.l}''' 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Adding only templates to Category:Protected templates Would anyone object to the following code being added after "categories=" | = }}} |#default=}} So that non-templates (specifically userspace test pages) are not added to Category:Protected templates. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) :This template is used both on high-risk templates, and on high-risk images. Usually images used in high-risk templates or in system messages. And such images also need to be categorised as protected. :Of course, we should probably make a separate category for the protected images, perhaps named Category:Wikipedia protected images, and the template should then categorise the images there. :And yes, the documentation needs updating since it should tell that this template can be used on images too. :--David Göthberg (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Merge and automate I haven't been involved in these templates for a long time, and probably won't have the time to help out here. But I have an idea/wish/request: I see that MediaWiki now has a new feature that makes it possible to detect what protection level a page has from template code. And I see that was merged into and that now uses the new feature to automatically behave the right way. So, I assume that now can be merged into . I would like that if that is done the template is coded in such a way that it can be used on non-protected templates too, that is that it displays nothing on such pages. Since then we can add it to the template, which is used in the noinclude area of many template pages. That would mean that most/many template pages would automatically get the right padlock etc. when an admin changes the protection level of a template page, without the admin having to think of adding or removing and . (They often forget to do that...) --David Göthberg (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)